Tag Archives: altruistic

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

―

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

================

Well.

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now.

To be clear.

I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘a job’ perspective. That because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK … I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok.

To be fair.

I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because … well … I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills.

I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be … well … dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could … well … “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could … well … “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward … well … the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear.

There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization … they tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists … but they do exist.

Anyway.

My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs.

90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things … beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.”

This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder. That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well … and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively.

Not all leaders and hirers can. some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and … well … hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way … not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fucking job.”

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that … well … made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this less than obvious skill set and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, we have a president who believes anyone can do any job and keeps hiring people who may be smart <and may not be … because I, frankly, question whether the President is smart> for positions they have no or little qualifications for that position.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient.

Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create … well … some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and … well … that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In a presidency your lack of self-awareness can create some real country repercussions – and we are seeing some of that lack of effectiveness now.

“You are a worm who thought himself a serpent just because you slither.

But your power was not real, Pliny.

It was all a dream. Time now to wake.”

—–

Pierce Brown

=============

So.

I would guess that most of us have run across a slitherer in business <let alone Life>.

A business slitherer?

Yeah.

One of those people who seem to slither in and around and as close to the edge of what is legal, ethical or right but never seems to cross any particular line far enough that someone can say unequivocally they have done something criminally wrong.

A slitherer slithers through all the same things most of us in business and in life do but does it in a way that seems corrupt <although it may not be>, seems illegal <although it may not be>, seems unethical <although it may not be> and seems inappropriate <although it may not be too everyone>.

That is the characteristic of one who slithers through Life.

—–

“seems.”

——-

“Seems” taints everything they do and, well, everything we do. A slitherer figures out a way to be held to a slightly different standard which ‘seems’ wrong but no one can point to any real specific criminally wrong behavior.

And it always helps to have someone defend you and somehow the one who slithers almost always has supporters. Those supporters mostly rally around the quasi-indefensible behavior because a slitherer is a proven survivor. And, yes, in a world in which surviving attrition may actually be a key to success … a persistent survivor can be viewed as an attractive ship to tie your line to <even if it is a ship of dubious lineage>.

But maybe the worst thing about someone who slithers their way to whatever success they gain is the team that ends up surrounding them.

Although I am no real prize for any boss … I would never work for a slitherer – my ethical and moral compass steers me too far away from any “seems wrong” behavior to make a position like that viable for me — or, I imagine, for a slitherer boss.

=============

“Round and round they went with their snakes, snakily…”

―

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

============================

My point on that is slitherers seek slitherers. It is a weird type of loyalty. It isn’t really loyalty to the person it is more loyalty to the fact you can behave in a way that ‘seems’ inappropriate on occasion but ‘seems’ okay to your boss <if not even applauded>.

Sigh.

That said.

We do not fire people for being seemingly unethical behavior or seemingly clueless behavior or seemingly inappropriate behavior. Appearance of behavior just makes people feel uncomfortable but it is typically not a fireable offense … it is just offensive.

And, yet, a slitherer thrives in the seemingly offensive behavior. They thrive because as their seeming behavior shrinks them in some ways it also grows their ability to slither around the edges of true illegal, true criminal, true unethical to do what they want to do the way they want to do it.

To be clear.

A good day for a slitherer is different than a good day for most of the rest of us.

Good to them is a “win”, or some version of successful outcome> done ‘their way’ of which no one can point to any specific wrong doing or completely unethical behavior <which, to them, is a type of success in and of itself>. Their ‘good win’ doesn’t have to actually contain any of what most of us would consider ‘good’ to be considered success.

To be clear.

Most good organizations foster a culture which tends to expel slitherers. Good cultures which foster moral & ethical behavior tend to avoid slithering close to any lines and therefore tend to treat slitherers as a virus to the organization itself.

I do worry, on occasion, that the good slitherers <which is actually an oxymoron> survive in any organization and are constantly trying to infect the organization itself <and, given the right circumstances, actually can take over an organization>.

I wrote this today because it has been sitting in my draft folder for a long time as an organizational behavior business piece … and now I can point out that our president is a slitherer.

He slithers through all the same things most of us in business and in life do but he does it in a way that seems corrupt <although it may not be>, seems illegal <although it may not be>, seems unethical <although it may not be> and seems inappropriate <although it may not be too everyone>.

Just watch. Trump will slither his way in and out of any seemingly illegal, corrupt, unethical event he places himself in. That is what a good slitherer does. And, yes, good slitherer is an oxymoron … but in a way President trump is also.

Knowledge of Botany: Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.

Knowledge of Geology: Practical but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.

Knowledge of Chemistry: Profound.

Knowledge of Anatomy: Accurate but unsystematic.

Knowledge of Sensational Literature: Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.

Plays the violin well.

Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.

Has a good practical knowledge of British law.”

―

Arthur Conan Doyle <A Study in Scarlet>

==================

So.

I am not sure if it is that I am of an age where my experiences have become varied enough that I chafe on being slotted in some form of ‘what you do’ or if I am of an age where many of the people I know get frustrated that they are demanded to define themselves, careerwise, in some simplistic way.

All that said.

I found myself in an odd alternative universe writing a core “here is why I have created this site and initiative” for someone I respect … and it was written for him but easily expressed my own situation.

After I sent him what I had scribbled I went back and I replaced his field with mine and … well … I found I was writing about my frustrations were which his … as well as a number of people I know:

====================

This site is borne of my frustration with explaining I am more than an advertising guy.

This site is borne of a belief that there is a community of advertising guys/gals who not only know they are more than advertising people but they also know they would like to use the skills they have in a business world which they see as needing what they have to offer.

This site is borne of what I know to be true – many of us are not simply advertising people, we are tinkers, tailors, soldiers & spies … all in one.

For some of us it gets frustrating to explain just because I have my MBA and am an experienced advertising guy that I am more than just that.

I get frustrated when my degree defines me.

I get frustrated when my industry experience label defines what my skills are.

I get frustrated that what I do, or have tangibly done, defines what I am capable of.

I get frustrated because I know how to ask the hard questions which often offer the hardest answers – the right things to do <which I believe businesses are desperate for this skill>.

I get frustrated because I know that “the truth is” is rarely the truth and I know that truths are often misty and multiple, like ghosts.

I get frustrated because I know all that I just wrote is a reflection of a thinking skill, a problem solving skill, a business skill and not just an advertising skill.

I get frustrated because I am more than an advertising guy and I know many people are frustrated by being slotted so simplistically.

To me, the world is too quick to define people and their skills in a simplistic way — simplistically by what they do <on the surface> and what specific skills they have acquired. People are often more complex than the labels they carry along with them and skills are often more translatable, with surprisingly positive outcomes, than many people are willing to think about.

It is our own fault because we have bludgeoned it into everyone’s head that everyone has to be a specialist or have some specific skill and, therefore, if you cannot simply define your specialty or skill you are … well … of less worth than someone who can.

That is, frankly, silly if not ludicrous.

Here is what I know.

I am more than an advertising guy. I am a tinker, tailor soldier and spy.

And I am building a community of likeminded people with a desire to go beyond simply being defined by the degree they earned and what labels people put on them to reach out into a business world, which may not know they need our skills at the moment, and show them there is a group of overlooked people who have skills to offer which businesses can benefit from.

============

tin·ker

ˈtiNGkər/

noun

noun: tinker; plural noun: tinkers

1.

(especially in former times) a person who travels from place to place mending metal utensils as a way of making a living.

a person who makes minor mechanical repairs, especially on a variety of appliances and apparatuses, usually for a living.

2.

an act of attempting to repair something.

tai·lor

ˈtālər/

noun

noun: tailor; plural noun: tailors

1.

a person whose occupation is making fitted clothes such as suits, pants, and jackets to fit individual customers.

Soldier

Noun

A soldier is one who fights as part of an organised, land based, sea based and air based armed force.

spy

spī/

noun

noun: spy; plural noun: spies

1.

a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

=============

Sigh.

I am fairly sure I am not in the majority in that the bulk of the world tends to acquire specific skills but I do believe the majority of generalists get unfairly squeezed into some incredibly uncomfortable boxes simply because the world just doesn’t seem to believe a generalist has the same value as a specialist.

It is frustrating.

To be clear … a qualified generalist doesn’t claim to be able to do everything.

I am not qualified to be a CFO <although I understand what CFOs do and what they say>.

I am not qualified to be some social media strategist <although I understand what they do and what they say>.

I am not qualified to … well … you get the point.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about effective marketing, advertising and communications in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about effective company vision, objectives, strategies and how to grow sales & retention in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about positioning products & services, behavioral economics and making the hard business decisions which guide businesses toward success in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to dabble in almost any topic in any industry on any issue and use that ‘dabbling’ to make some relevant points based on some seemingly disparate type knowledge.

===============

“You know about fixing cars, you’re athletic, and you know when to shut up.”

“Do not imagine that the good you intend will balance the evil you perform.”

―

Norman Mac Donald

====================

Oh.

Yes.

Intentions matter.

Oh.

Yes.

Intentions matter a shitload.

I could even argue that intentions are all that matters.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. People are gonna start coming out of the woodwork to point out all the bad things that have happened despite, or even because of, people with good intentions.

Stay in the woodwork.

I guess my view is good is good when it comes to intentions … even if bad happens. I would take someone who behaved day in and day out guided with good intentions on my team, or call a friend, any day of the week and be quite happy. And I would remain happy if something bad happened or mistakes happened.

I have said this before and I will say it again … at the end of anything … project, life, day, mistake, success, whatever … you are often left with nothing tangible in hand. All you have is something intangible … how you played the game and what were your intentions.

Sorry about that … but that is truth. Sometimes we lay down at the end of the day, put our head on the pillow and all we have is “but I had the best of intentions.”

Some people will say a voice in your head should respond … “intentions are not good enough.”

I disagree <with a caveat>.

My caveat? If you truly did put forth the effort and truly did act with the best of intentions … well … you know what?

You go to sleep. Sleep soundly. And get up the next day and say “I am starting all over again putting forth the effort and with good intentions.”

=====================

“<Dad> So your intentions were good. That’s what matters.

<Anthony> But isn’t, like, the road to hell paved with good intentions?

<D> Yeah, well, so’s the road to heaven. And if you spend too much time thinking about where those good intentions are taking you, you know where you end up?

<A> Jersey?

I was thinking ‘nowhere,’ but you get the point.”

―

Neal Shusterman

=========

Here is a truth.

An unfortunate truth but a real one nonetheless.

For most of us … 99% of the things you have done were done with best intentions by taking the best view of the situation at hand and, most likely, done in the range of best decisions available.

You do your best.

You make the best decisions you can.

You act with good intentions.

You accept what you did as neither stupid nor smart … but rather the best in that time and place and done with the best intentions in mind.

And 99% of the time you just accept what you actually did and not invest time going back over ‘should haves’ and instead invest that 99% of your time moving forward or making some progress.

Well.

That last thought is hard. It is difficult. Accepting what you have done, the bad and the good, is … well … difficult. Accepting that you have learned that lesson in the moment and do not have to retrace steps to ‘learn’ is difficult.

All I can really say is this is where ‘good intentions’ really matters.

It matters because if you act with good intentions … accepting what you have done, the bad and the good, actually becomes a lighter burden than carrying along a shitload of heavy lack-of-good-intention ‘should haves.’

Acceptance with good intentions is a light load and makes you nimbler for the future. And if that isn’t the ultimate argument for good intentions I don’t know what is … because in today’s world having some agility to adapt may be the single most survival skill anyone can have.

Finally.

I think 99% of us know we are imperfect, have some bad as well our good, and we don’t summarily throw ourselves away as useless and unusable despite that knowledge.

I think we all know while 100% ‘good’ and 100% ‘good will be the outcome of good intentions’ is an admirable goal … but not really an attainable goal <because, ultimately, we are human>.

I think 99% of us actually realize the complex mix of bad and good … done with good intentions … well … makes us good people to have around.

“Incrementalism is how we slide into participation by imperceptible degrees so that there is never the sense of a frontier being crossed.”

—-

Jonathan Glover

============

“Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.”

—-

Kahlil Gibran

====================

Well.

Incrementalism is a virus.

Once you catch it is a sonuvabitch to cure.

I, personally, believe the entire business world, including new business incubators, has this virus. Incrementalism has seeped its way not only into mainstream business but also mainstream ‘innovation’ pipelines.

Yeah.

Innovations too.

I dare any of you to walk the halls of your local business incubation center and find a real, “break the etch-a-sketch” idea in there. If you are lucky, you will find one.

The majority of innovation ideas these days, incubators as well as established companies, is all about some incremental leveraging from something existing.

Sure.

They may claim its “unique” and “a whole new way of doing things” but the majority of the time, lets say 98% of the time, it is a derivative of seething that exists.

That is how far the incrementalism virus has reached into the business world.

But this post today isn’t about innovation. This is about how incrementalism just makes us sad. It makes us sad because if you embrace incrementalism that means you have given up on … well … something that is not incremental. You have given up on being able to do something big and risky and game changing.

Now.

You may not believe you have given it up because we, in the business world,

….. incrementalism dance ………

actually cleverly use incrementalism to convince ourselves we are actually achieving big changes.

We do the dance of ‘small steps to achieve big change’ which is kind of some odd waltz in which we make the same moves over and over again and point to change as “we improved how we dance” <but we are still in the same place dancing with the same person dancing to the same music>.

To be clear.

Even I, someone who loves change and “shaking the etch-a-sketch” in business, have been sucked into the black hole of incrementalism.

We do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves that big change is hard … shit … any change is hard … and almost impossible to do it is do difficult.

We do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves that the only way to effectively successfully implement change is through smaller thoughtful steps.

We do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves of all that … so much so that’s all we do.

Big change is possible. You just need to be smart, thoughtful and choose the ‘big’ wisely and with open eyes.

But nowadays we view ‘big’ as some place we need to work our way towards and not just something we do. Unfortunately, as soon as we step onto the incrementalism slippery slope it, more often than not, causes everyone to slide unintentionally into unchanging behavior. We do small thing after small thing which make us feel like we are changing and that shit is changing … uhm … but the world itself is changing faster than we are.

In our incrementalism we are moving forward and, yet, falling behind. It’s like walking on a moving sidewalk in the wrong direction.

Maybe the worst part?

We do not even see the backwards effect of our supposed forward movement. This happens mostly because most of us suck at not only changing but perceiving change. We easily lose sight of any change as we focus on the incremental activity we have wholly embraced as ‘progress’ <because big change is impossible and this is the way to do it!>.

The other very real danger of incrementalism is that while you have your head down focused on the incremental task at hand … not only may the rest of the world be moving faster than you … it may even turn. So you will keep plugging away plodding down your incrementalism path and all the while the rest of the world is now trundling away in a completely different direction.

By the way … in business this is bad.

Anyway.

I will absolutely admit that most of the business world absolutely recognizes the importance of seeking to continuously reinvent and, yet, sadly … well … mostly we are actually just going through the motions.

The motions may look incredibly sensible but they really aren’t achieving any change of any significance.

===============

In politics, the term Incrementalism is also used as a synonym for Gradualism. Incrementalism is a method of working by adding to a project using many small incremental changes instead of a few (extensively planned) large jumps.

Logical incrementalism implies that the steps in the process are sensible.

============

I fully admit that change is hard <and it pays to be sensible>.

And I fully admit that big change is even harder … and more risky <and it pays to be sensible>.

But that isn’t my point.

My point is that it seems like we have convinced ourselves in the business world that change is ALWAYS best achieved gradually and incrementally.

We should always find the easy small steps and do them.

So what <you may be asking>?

This means we begin measuring the success of the business not by any real change but rather defining our usefulness and worthiness by measuring it in increments versus the past. Incrementalism more often than not doesn’t get measured by how much closer to the ‘big change’ you are but rather by how far you have gone from what you were.

Uhm.

That is nuts.

And while it is nuts that is almost exactly how over 90% of business conduct business <and their change>.

Look.

While I always advocate timely good big change … I certainly would never advocate not embracing any incrementalism at all.

Business change is, and as always been, about choice. You look around and choose where incrementalism may be most effective and where ‘big change’ is actually needed. In other words … for doing smart change … you do both within your business.

Yeah.

I can do both at the same time.

This has two benefits:

Organization: all businesses need to be reinvented in some way. I cannot remember one business I have seen or been involved in that hadn’t established some routine that didn’t need to be changed significantly. Incrementalism steadies the organization by not destroying something but rather fine tuning it. Conversely when you tie big change to the organization elsewhere it energizes the organization that it is being smart <to not change everything> but bold <in that it is willing to make selective smart big changes>. Showing both is the best of both worlds.

The employee/individual: incrementalism is a virus almost like mononucleosis. It encourages employees to almost sleepwalk through the day. When you inject big change and encourage everyone to believe it can be done … and develop a plan to show it can be done … and activate people to start getting it done … individual employees are reminded that there IS something more than either the status quo or ‘incremental and gradual change’ <which they were struggling to discern from the everyday grind anyway>.

In the end … my concern.

My concern is that our love of incrementalism is killing big change.

I don’t want to kill incrementalism but I certainly want to breathe new life into big change.

Just know this about incrementalism … the problem is that incrementalism is seductively sleepy. It’s the Prozac of business strategy. All I can really suggest is that every business should stop taking Prozac on occasion and watch how the pulse of the company picks up … they may find that Life off of Prozac just isn’t that bad. More importantly … they may find they can shrug off the sadness of incrementalism and have a happier organization. And that is a good thing in business.

I will not comment on their presidential choices because … well … as with any election the ones trying to get elected tell everyone not to be confused on the issues … then proceed to tell everyone shit that confuses the real issues <and us> … and then people who are, in general, confused about what the people they are voting for really stand on some issues as they duel each other with tactics <but smear each other with overarching lies>.

That is par for the course in every election these days.

Someone can be called racist … and they are not.

Someone can be claimed to “let anyone across the border” … and they have no plans to do that.

Someone can be called a liar … and they actually stretch the truth less than the one making the claim.

Someone can … well … let’s just say … excepting an ardent few … for the everyday schmuck it can be really quite confusing.

Oddly … all the confusion does is mask the truly important decision … for France it is the doctrine of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’ For USA … despite Thomas Jefferson and other’s temptation to head down the same path … we settled on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all.

I say ‘oddly’ because elections seem to revolve around what I, as a business person, would call tactics. Immigration, health, jobs, security, etc. important shit … but tactics to meet the objective. All this talk about the tactics truly seems to confuse us, the voters & citizens, about the overarching objective.

And politicians shamelessly use and stretch the meaning of tactics to morph them into something that the objective demands … when it does no such thing.

That may be the most heinous thing a politician does these days.

We should almost demand each of them to put up the objective … what the country, the ‘one nation’ <not “under God” … just ‘one nation’> stands for and demand that every time they make some ludicrous claim or offer some distorted thought about past country behavior that they explain to us how it meets the objective.

Uhm.

Just a quick not to my American readers on the whole “under God” aside I just offered.

Our founding fathers centered everything, Constitution and Bill of Rights, on one core idea — liberty and justice for all.

While some important stuff surrounds that core they are the trappings of what makes up the core.

I say that because our founding fathers did not write the pledge of allegiance.

Nor did the pledge we all stood up and speak in our childhood schoolrooms originally include “under God” <even though the original was created by an ordained minister in 1892>.

It was only in the spring of 1954, after US Congress had voted with some controversy, to insert the phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance — partly as a cold war tactic against “godless” communism.

——————–

The original Pledge read as follows:

‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ He considered placing the word, ‘equality,’ in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

[ * ‘to’ added in October, 1892 ]

—————–

All Americans should remember that core of the pledge of allegiance is the ‘republic for which it stands,’ which, I could argue, is the concise phrase for One Nation – an ‘’executive summary’ if you will of the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. The pledge unequivocally states that to make that One Nation idea viable we must specify that it is indivisible. This is a word, and a thought, used by Jefferson, other founding fathers, Daniel Webster, Lincoln and almost every visionary leader the country has ever had throughout speeches & writing.

No one should be confused by what the core of the country doctrine is … nor what the Founding Fathers desired … liberty & justice for all … one nation … indivisible.

<and shame on any politician who suggests otherwise>

Anyway.

About the only thing I am sure of during an election is that there will be rampant confusion among those who are actually voting and unrelenting adamant fervor of what everyone should not be confused about <tactics>.

As a nation France stands square on the doctrine of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’

Until someone comes along and says “no, that’s not right, lets change it to bla bla bla …” that is what makes France ‘One Nation’.

Not baguettes.

Not great coffee.

Not mastering the art of wearing a scarf.

Not even a semi-haughty attitude on occasion.

One nation.

The moment a country ignores that which makes it one … and gets confused by what some politician suggests is an important tactic that doesn’t really match up with ‘oneness’ it no longer is a country with a doctrine or a soul. It remains divided by tactics and empty of an objective.

As a business guy. As I read that last sentence, for a business, I hear the tolling of the death knell.

Without oneness a nation is no longer a nation. And a tactic, NO tactic, will never insure oneness … only an idea can.

I wish France oneness today … shit … every day.

Outside of America it is my favorite country in the world. I wish them liberty, honor and lack of confusion … because clarity is the path to oneness.

And be clear … the idea which makes France one is ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’

“I supposed she was exhibiting what people nowadays refer to, with crushing disapproval, as denial.

It’s always been hard for me to tell the difference between denial and what used to be known as hope.”

—

Michael Chabon

==============

“She would consider each day a miracle – which indeed it is, when you consider the number of unexpected things that could happen in each second of our fragile existences.”

—-

Paulo Coelho

====================

Well.

As noted far too many times on Enlightened Conflict I am an unequivocal Hope guy.

Now.

That said.

Until I saw the opening quote I am not sure I have ever equated denial and hope in any form or fashion … let alone even thought there was a relationship between denial and hope.

But ever since I saved this quote <over a year ago> I have come back to it again and again thinking about whether we do actually navigate some line between hope and denial.

It also made me think about what Hope and Denial really is.

Hope is big.

And often it is so big we forget some of its dynamics. Hope, while encompassing a view with an eye toward some positive or favorable outcome, spans from something well founded in probability to something completely beyond the pale of possibility.

On one end is dream, with wish settled in beside it on some cloud, and on the other end is expect, with anticipate snuggled up beside it on a different cloud.

I imagine this is why we tend to immediately label someone’s hope as either false hope or realistic hope <when we actually mean one of the dynamics I just outlined>.

And what exactly is denial?

Denial is a little less complex <although it does have degrees> in that, at its core, it is the refusal to accept a past or present reality … a truth.

Simplistically, you refuse to see some harsh truths in reality. I could argue the two ends of the denial spectrum are simply “total” and “less-conviction” but instead I would just say that denial is like a border wall in which some places it is a little less thick than in others.

But denial has a nefarious side to it with regard to hope. Just ponder this for a minute or two … denial is pretending to have Hope, while you’re actually feeling there is no Hope.

If that is true, than denial’s relationship with Hope is more along the lines as a door between your reality and true Hope.

And maybe it is Denial’s responsibility to insure Hope is difficult enough to get to that we don’t more easily slide into the wishful thinking side of the spectrum rather than the anticipation or expectation side of the spectrum.

=========

“Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.”

—

The Architect from The Matrix, Reloaded

==============

Somewhere between hope and denial is where we usually seem to find the realism we need to shift Hope from false hope to real hope.

Well.

At least that’s what I think.

I had some help in this thinking. I grabbed one of my most used books on my bookshelf … The Essays of Montaigne … for a little guidance. I found it in an odd spot. In one of Montaigne’s 107 exploratory essays in one titled “That to Study Philosophy is to Learn to Die” <which I believe is actually a Cicero thought> Montaigne discusses Death & mortality … and points to the understanding of death as a prerequisite for the understanding of life, for the very art of living.

I read the essay and then went back and replaced Death with Denial.

Rather than indulging the fear of death <Denial>, Montaigne calls for dissipating it by facing it head-on, with awareness and attention:

=====

[L]et us learn bravely to stand our ground, and fight him. And to begin to deprive him of the greatest advantage he has over us, let us take a way quite contrary to the common course. Let us disarm him of his novelty and strangeness, let us converse and be familiar with him, and have nothing so frequent in our thoughts as Denial<sic>. Upon all occasions represent him to our imagination in his every shape; at the stumbling of a horse, at the falling of a tile, at the least prick with a pin, let us presently consider, and say to ourselves, ‘Well, and what if it had been Denial itself?’ and, thereupon, let us encourage and fortify ourselves.

Let us evermore, amidst our jollity and feasting, set the remembrance of our frail condition before our eyes, never suffering ourselves to be so far transported with our delights, but that we have some intervals of reflecting upon, and considering how many several ways this jollity of ours tends to Denial, and with how many dangers it threatens it.

The Egyptians were wont to do after this manner, who in the height of their feasting and mirth, caused a dried skeleton of a man to be brought into the room to serve for a memento to their guests.

=======

Well.

There is a thought, huh?

You have to face Denial and have some intervals of reflecting upon, and considering how many several ways this jollity of ours tends to Denial, and with how many dangers it threatens it.

Maybe this all suggests you have to actually find something about Hope to appreciate. It could be anything, even something tiny. And maybe that is where Denial serves its role … as Montaigne discussed Death maybe it is within our conflict with Denial in which we find that “something” that is meaningful and not simply some nebulous wishful thinking.

Look.

I balk at a coexisting relationship between Hope & Denial mostly because I struggle to believe you can effectively focus on the positive and the negative at the same time.

I balk at a coexisting relationship between Hope & Denial because hope, to me, is not simply the denial of reality.

I balk at a coexisting relationship between Hope & Denial because I believe Denial, when it occurs properly, may actually help someone navigate life to more, and better, Hope.

All that said.

I am not sure everyone walks paths of Life with signposts guiding them toward Denial on the way to some place called Hope but the ones who do recognize the signposts … I think that there isn’t really a line between denial and hope … I think that denial demands you run through it to get to Hope.

Okay.

Maybe it would be better to say that you have to push your way through denial to get to good clean hope.

But that is me … that is the relationship to me.

I have never really gotten a grip on whether I think Hope is fragile or the strongest thing in the world. I think Hope can easily be killed and, yet, it can offer a light in the darkest of dark.

And maybe that is where Denial comes into play.

In an unexpected way maybe when you consider the number of unexpected things that could happen in each second of our fragile existences denial forges the strongest of our hopes so that they can withstand the darkest of dark and the grind of normality.

To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

—-

Buckminster Fuller

==============

“This is the genius and the Achilles’ heel of American culture.

We … have a strong belief in self-determination and agency, even when our expectations fly in the face of reality.”

—-

Katherine Newman, who studies social mobility

============

So.

Facing reality, as an individual, it can appear like a speed boat … crashing through waves with any significant milestones flashing by so fast they become a blur.

Facing reality, collectively. It can appear like a fully loaded tanker … ploughing its way through the waves where significance is measured, if discernable at all, in broad sweeping miles of slow turns.

I sometimes believe it is because of that continuous friction between those two things that on the same issue you will find people saying “whew, but look how far we have come” and another group of people saying “whew, but look how far we have to go.”

That Reality can be a real bastard.

Especially when it occurs to us that reality maintains … well … some consistency <even with all that coming and going stuff>.

I think we overlook that consistency because people, as humans do, view reality thru the eyes of … well … the person. Therefore we see reality as the ship <speedboat or tanker> when the … uhm … reality … is that Reality is the ocean itself.

Waves, tides, undercurrents, intermittently calm and stormy.

I thought of this as I came across two things within minutes of each other … an interview Sammy David Jr. did with the BBC in 1966 and a panel discussion on London Daily where they were discussing ex-president Obama.

Both had to do with the undercurrent of racism.

And it made me realize that we had come far and still had far to go.

And it made me realize that far too often we … well … fight reality. And reality fights back.

I believe it was Umberto Eco who suggested life has “lines of resistance.” This was his version of reality.

Now.

While possibly a ‘line of resistance’ is a surety in the grander scheme of Life … you can be sure that Reality can be a real bastard in that it is restless <think of my ocean metaphor>.

Separately … because of these ‘lines of resistance’ we cannot say or do whatever we like with impunity.

Oh.

Yeah.

But the lines of resistance can shift.

Just like with racism.

Just like what we say and do … and how we think and act.

Here is all I really know about reality and lines of resistance. We can resist & fight reality. And, in fact, our way of improving reality is most likely best found in how we not only resist against the lines of resistance but also how we push back, and out, against these lines. We can do this … one by one … as individuals. It was the Sammy Davis Jr. interview that reminded me of that truth.

You fight and use the opportunity given you by your fighting so that the next person has it a little better than you did.

That is how we fight reality. And that is, frankly, why fighting reality matters.

Do I wish we didn’t have to fight it? Sure.

Just think about what we could do if we could concentrate all of that energy on something significantly more useful.

====

Sammy Davis Jr. interview for the BBC, 1966

I had so much contempt thrown at me, so much hatred thrown at me, I’ve really awakened to the point where I really got no time to hate that vehemently back.

And if you waste your time and your energy — I’ve come to realize that, the people who hate, see if they could concentrate half of that time on discovering a cure for cancer, we would have had discovered, you know, twenty years ago — that’s one group I do not want to belong to.

The hurt is still there, every time someone calls you nigger, it hurts, and you can’t deny it hurts, but you cannot lay on it.

Persistent CEOs almost always get the information they request. It might not arrive as fast as they’d like, but eventually it gets there. Their bigger problem is getting information they haven’t demanded because they don’t know to ask for it. And unfortunately, it’s not just obscure corners of underperforming operations that CEOs are oblivious to. Often, it’s some brewing development that will redraw the lines of competition for the future.

One way to describe these unanticipated risks is “unknown unknowns”—a phrase former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld made famous in 2002.

================

“Before beginning a hunt, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it.”

–

Winnie the Pooh

==================

“Chaos is what we’ve lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego, which clenches because its existence is defined in terms of control.”

―

Terence McKenna

===================

Well.

I have written extensive pieces on effectively managing change in business, probably been asked to speak about managing change in business a dozen times and, yet, I am not even close to being an expert and every time I return to the topic I learn something new.

This time I learned something new in a Harvard Business Review article called “Bursting the CEO Bubble” by Hal Gregersen and how change leader can become “un-insulated” from the information they need to implement the most appropriate change.

Almost every new leader is new because the business they are assuming responsibility for wants some change <I struggle to think of a new leader being placed to ‘maintain the status quo’>.

So lets say, just to hedge y bets, 98.37% of new leaders are being asked to create some sort of change … the change can be big <transformation type change> or it can be small <fine tuning type change> … but suffice it to say … change is change and change is demanded.

And while many people will say all this effective change fashizzle we talk about is all about vision … I would argue it is more about insights. I say that because we all know we want our car to go as fast as it can and do so successfully over whatever type of terrain we are aiming to traverse … but you gotta get under the hood to assess the engine to make it all happen.

I use the engine analogy because I am often asked about how leadership insights are revealed and I, personally, believe it is foolish to advocate anything like a linear process in uncovering them … because not only is there no real linear process to uncover them but … well … most things work like engines in which hundreds of parts need to work together to make shit happen well.

Yeah. That is not linear – do this and this will happen — stuff.

A change leader is demanded to bring some sanity to the horizon … not reckless chaos.

Insights spring from a multitude of sources that are often difficult to define or systemize and can often look quite chaotic. I say that to point out that trotting out some ‘tried & true process’ is no guarantee of any success … in fact … it may guarantee failure <because change is amorphous in nature and process is solid in nature>. What matters most are the qualities and the inherent skills one must possess to gain the necessary insights — seeing the possible and being the change, as a leader, we want to make in the business.

All of what I just wrote is important because change is not just change.

Huh?

Well.

Far too often we permit change to be defined as some nebulous idea. And in doing so we talk about change a shitload … but never really seem to get around to doing everything that needs to be done <implementing it in an effective way>.

This doesn’t mean that these leaders are not truly trying hard to bring about change. It’s just that their attempts get trapped in the wretched hollow between ‘ideology’ <conceptual shit> and the practical <which is by no mean easy or simple>.

And it gets even more complicated if the leader can only envision what is <the current system> … which leads only to tweaks & improvements . The best change leaders not only see the system that exists but also envisions a system that … well … does not exist.

For it is within that understanding in which a good change leader can break what needs to be broken, keep what needs to be kept and tweak what needs to be tweaked.

Inevitably successful change is a reflection of several things … all embodied in a process incorporating information, education, dialogue, and ultimately, the insights generated from the process which will drive the choices.

Which leads me to ‘asking questions’ <because the only way you can gain insights is by actually asking questions>.

I don’t know why but it seems like there is a growing fear to ask questions these days … especially by leaders.

And I really don’t know why.

McKinsey just did a whole study on how leaders should be better listeners and ask better questions.

Say what?

A whole study?

WTF.

Why not just have an entire seminar called “common sense.”

That said.

Here is the most basic aspect of any good leader … information begets insights which inform decisions. It sounds really basic … so basic I think we often overlook it.

We discuss instinctual decision-making.

We discuss effective decision-making.

But rarely do we discuss the fact this insight-to-decision relationship <or at least … not often enough>. And because of that we sometimes ignore how we gather information, assess information, discern information and use the right information to ultimately make a decision.

Yeah. What I am suggesting is that information may actually be more important than past experience <existing ‘answers’ you may have to offer>.

Suffice it to say … the best change leaders almost slowdown in gathering information, and ask questions, to speed up <in the decision and its effectiveness>.

Maybe we don’t talk about this because if we did … and described it that way … it sounds … uhm … slow.

Questioning.

Listening .

Responding.

And, yet, to be effective a change leader has to ask different questions in order to get new answers to the problem sitting right in front of them <and, no, there is no secret handbook … or published book … or even some website article which can give you all the different questions to ask – albeit you can find some of this false advice if you search>.

But it was this new HBR article, and MIT study, which reminded me that in order to be successful when dropping into a new company, and effectively survive, you have to be able to uncover the crucial information … the stuff you can get from a spreadsheet or in some board room.

==================

I think the default strategy and direction with any organization is towards efficiency. It’s all about the assumption that we already know what to do and we’re doing the right thing, so let’s just be more efficient with it. When that starts happening, people stop asking questions and it can easily turn into a situation where leaders don’t want to get questions coming at them. A number of the leaders I interviewed said that they got hired, and promoted up the ranks because they were able to give quick, smart, relevant answers to people. The problem is, when people move into that CEO role, they not only need to know how to do things that are currently being done, but they’re defining the future. That takes a completely different behavioral-set, mindset, and skill set. Many organizations don’t realize that, and when they get into that pure efficiency mode, solving and poking and challenging the status quo is not part of the mantra.

Those CEOs asking better questions and speaking out about what they don’t know are obsessive about client, customer, and user needs. When a leader takes that fundamental position of customers first, and they actually mean it, they’re simultaneously taking the position that problems are first, not politics.

Hal Gregerson

executive director of the MIT Leadership Center

=========

While I have often suggested that a good change leader is like an assassin … that implies “effectively killing the problem.” Upon reflection I think that diminishes the importance of the research & planning which leads to the ‘assassination.’

You have to hunt down the necessary information. So maybe I should suggest it is a hunter assassin characteristic.

You have to come in and go on the hunt for new information … ask … and listen effectively.

I imagine I am pounding away on this point because most change leaders gain a new position to give answers … and they are used to not only talking but giving answers. And, most likely, because they did get the position there are a shitload of people in organizations more than willing to let the new change leader talk and give some marching orders <answers>. The current business environment seems to encourage action and less reflection <before acting>.

And a portion of that ‘environment’ pressure is correct. Many times we wait too long and act too slowly. But I would argue that fast movement or more considered movement … if you haven’t asked the questions you will not be successful.

================

“No plan survives meeting the enemy.”

General von Moltke

==========

““On s’engage et puis … on voit.”

“First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens.”

Napoleon

=================

For if you are trying to build out a plan to stand the tests of implementation or commit to ‘adapting to implementation issues’ … you have to know the proper insights.

My personal attitude is that I assume I am wrong about many things.

I say that as I share a quote I agree with 100%:

“The difference between successful executives and unsuccessful ones is not the quality of their decision making. Each one probably makes good decisions 60% of the time and bad ones 40% of the time—and maybe it’s even 55% to 45%. The difference is, the successful executive is faster to recognize the bad decisions and adjust, whereas failing executives often dig in and try to convince people that they were right.”

Anyway.

Change leadership is not just about a good plan nor is it just about effective adaptation … it is about having the flexibility to accommodate the unforeseen. You don’t know what you don’t know.

And leadership, in general, translates into a natural isolating bubble created by the position and the power that comes with it.

This bubble naturally creates a layer between what you know, and do not know, and what you should know.

I can tell you one thing — unequivocally. If you are managing change and stumbling into what you didn’t know … and not having the insight to adapt to what you didn’t know … your survival, and the survival of what you are managing, is under significant threat.

Change is complex.

The best of he best, and smartest, management thought leaders have created sophisticated frameworks all designed to help business leaders grapple with their own change strategies at an abstract level.

But the reality is that strategy succeeds or fails based on how well leaders at every level of an organization integrate real useful insights into day-to-day operations.

“It is so hard to leave—until you leave. And then it is the easiest goddamned thing in the world.”

―

John Green

==============

Ok.

This is actually a business post … well … a thought piece about how an individual gains their own business acumen and belief system.

Let’s assume you come from a working family. Your mom and dad worked. Maybe one of them was in a managerial position. If that is how you grew up you watched and gained some business beliefs from them. Their successes often dictate how we view gaining success.

And then … well … you grow up. You gain your own business experience and there comes a time when your own experience permits you to view your parent’s experience & views.

I would suggest that this is actually the third phase in the parent/child dynamic in Life.

The first?

There is the point in time when all of a sudden you realize your parents are human. That isn’t business … that is Life.

I wrote about this in a post called ‘the slippery slope of embellishment’ in which good parents, with good hearts and good intentions get trapped on the slippery slope. If parents are not very very careful they can step onto this slope early on in their children’s lives and if they are not careful to nip the embellishment in the bud at a key point that little nugget of ‘not exactly truth’ has become a seed that will grow in their child’s minds to become the ‘super human’ aspect of a child viewing their parents.

It is natural and there almost always comes a time when we face up to the fact most parents do the best they can but didn’t always get it right or even live their own lives quite right.

The second.

Then there are our 20’s when most of us stumble our way through the career gauntlet gaining some business experience … good & bad … where most of the time we think we know more than our bosses and everyone else only to be continuously proven that is not actually so.

For the most part this is a separation from parent influence as you just have to deal with most shit on your own with some key interactions <at most> for guidance.

The third?

Then there comes a time … usually in early to mid 30’s … where your experience kicks in and if you are rising in business leadership you start understanding your own style, acumen and belief system.

Let’s just say that this is the time when you have worked your way through most of what business demands of you and you have decided how you want to deal with it, manage it and get what you want out of it.

This almost always forces a family choice. This is because your decided path, or how you may walk on that path, may not be exactly what your parent’s is.

Sometimes you can quietly ignore it and figure out a way to walk in the gray and then there sometimes comes a point in which Life places a spotlight on the choice – embrace your mother or father’s view or your own.

This is the moment when you are an adult and for some reason the spotlight of Life forces you to view the flaws of your parents, or either your father or mother, and you are faced with the fact they had some hollowness you had chosen to overlook or maybe you actually realize that while they brought you up, with their best intentions, to believe Life should be lived a certain way … you have come to believe Life should be faced a different way.

This is the moment you have a family choice to make.

If you have half a brain you have been dancing around the issue for a while. Embracing some aspects just to keep them happy, embracing some others because … well … they had got you where you are today … and ignoring some others simply because you think they are stupid, old fashioned or just plain wrong.

But then you get faced, and forced, with the choice.

You get forced mostly because all of a sudden you become representative of someone else’s business beliefs and acumen. You become an agent of what they believe and do … whether you actually believe it or do it.

Well.

A couple things can happen and I would suggest they are mostly sequential.

The first is you, as an experienced 30something, try to influence your parents’ behavior and beliefs. You attempt to pick away at what you construe as some of the more heinous aspects to get them closer to your acumen.

You do this almost always under the guise of “times have changed and this is more likely to work.” Sometimes this works … more often it does not.

But you gotta try.

The difficulty is you will not win all of them and you end up either focusing on the ‘wins’ while blinding yourself from the ‘sins’ or you get some ‘wins’ on the less meaningful things and still get slimed by the more meaningful ‘sins.’

The second is you, as an experienced 30something, try to distance yourself from the parent’s behavior & beliefs.

The difficulty here is that distance in distancing is almost always the key. Proximity screws you. Especially if you go your own way, pave your one pathway … and it ends up too near your parent’s path.

And to be sure … all of this gets cloaked in your personal relationship with the parent. It gets cloaked in family ties & ‘blood’, maybe some guilt in that you know they had best intentions, possibly feel some debt in that you know they helped you get t where you are today and then finally do you have a close personal relationship or not.

All of these things sound, in typing, as easy things to assess and decide upon … uhm … but it is family. It is a parent. It is the one “who brung you to the party.”

Well.

Let me clarify that last thought.

I would suggest most people reach their 30’s having taken one of two paths with regard to family:

You got to where you were by following what you had been taught and tied to your parent’s business ideology, acumen and beliefs.

You got to where you were by rebelling against everything your parents had stood for, believed and ideology.

Regardless of how you got there I could argue that your parent ‘brung you to the party’ either by showing you the way or shoving you away. Therefore when decision time arrives you gotta face who brought you to the party.

It ain’t easy.

Because my father passed away before I hit my business stride I never had to deal with it … but I know I would have.

I cannot envision how difficult it would be to say “no, that is not right.”

Or.

“no, I want to do it this way.”

Or.

“no, you shouldn’t do that.”

It is the family choice.

But maybe it is more about what is right or wrong for ‘self.’ And that is the choice … because family will have wandered down the business path of Life having defined right & wrong in a certain way … and, yet, you, individually, have crafted a business path with a slightly different right & wrong.

The semantics between the two become real – especially if it all takes place publicly.

Interestingly I thought about this after I wrote my ‘in this time, at this place, I will be defined’ post. In this time, and in this place, I believe more 30somethings are being forced to take a stand … and often versus their father, mother or older generation.

I call it a family choice.

And I imagine it is a hard choice.

And I imagine I can really only say one last thing … the future resides in the hands, hearts & minds of the 30somethings. They should make a stand for what they believe is right, or wrong, even if it forces a family choice.